


Why Antonio is not as evil as Prospero thinks

by TheOneChickThatMayOrMayNotBeInsane



Category: SHAKESPEARE William - Works, The Tempest - Shakespeare
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-01-24
Updated: 2016-01-24
Packaged: 2018-05-16 01:11:05
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 751
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/5807518
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/TheOneChickThatMayOrMayNotBeInsane/pseuds/TheOneChickThatMayOrMayNotBeInsane
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>An essay detailing whether or not Antonio was justified in taking the throne from Prospero.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Why Antonio is not as evil as Prospero thinks

Antonio is an interesting villain. Unlike some of Shakespeare’s villains who exist just because the story needed a villain (see John the Bastard in _Much Ado About Nothing_ ). Antonio doesn’t exist just because Prospero needs someone to hate, or because Sebastian needed someone to push him into killing Alonso. Sebastian already had murderous tendencies, otherwise he would not have accepted Antonio’s proposition to kill Alonso or helped Alonso overthrow Prospero. Prospero would have found another man to bear a grudge against, as he is that sort of man. This makes it sound like Antonio is not important, but to say that would be completely incorrect. It is unlikely that Sebastian would _act_ on his murderous urges without Antonio to egg him on. The play would be completely different without Antonio supplanting Prospero.

Prospero tells Miranda and, by extension, the audience, why his brother supplanted him in Act One Scene Two. He says, “to him put the manage of my state; as at that time through all the signories it was the first and Prospero the prime duke, being so reputed in dignity, and for the liberal arts without a parallel; those being all my study, the government I cast upon my brother and to my state grew stranger, being transported and rapt in secret studies.” This means that he _gave_ control over to Antonio so Prospero could study his magic arts. He also wasn't acknowledged by the lesser lords as the ruler of Milan. Of course, what Prospero considers “giving control” is running his state for him but not getting any credit for it. He’s basically saying that Prospero was taking all the credit for whatever Antonio did in his state. If Antonio gave more power to the people, Prospero would take credit for it. If Antonio worked for the noble class, Prospero would become more popular with the nobles. This theory is reinforced in Act Two Scene One, where Antonio says, “my brother's servants were then my fellows; now they are my men.” He’s implying that, even though he was a noble and the duke’s brother, he was no better than a servant in his brother’s eyes, and by extension, the other nobles' eyes, which was no way to treat a noble, even if he was a second son, which Antonio was. Subtly implying that Antonio was a “servant” also shows this idea of Antonio serving Prospero. He’s not taking care of him by doing manual labour, he’s serving him by ruling Milan. 

Antonio might have also felt that he was justified in taking his brother’s throne. The laws of succession in Italy, which at this point was a cluster of city-states, was very unclear and as long as one could prove that they had a blood relation to the throne, they were justified in taking it. These rules only came into effect if the current ruler was dead. It is imaginable that many of the citizens knew that Antonio was the brother of the duke, which gave him a wonderful reason to send Prospero away so he could legally acquire the dukedom and get credit for running it. While this act was certainly callous, the reader does not know how Prospero governed (if he did at all) versus how Antonio governed. It could be possible that Antonio was a wonderful, fair, just ruler, who had all of his people’s interests at heart and that Prospero didn’t much care what happens to his people as long as he could still study his books. The reader never gets to find out. The only part of Antonio’s rule that the reader gets to find out about is the tax that Alonso requires him to pay. This tax was paid so that Alonso won’t tell the people of Milan that Antonio killed their king. It was the 17th century’s equivalent of bloodmoney. 

Despite not knowing more about Antonio, he is undoubtedly a villain. Even if one believes he is justified in sending Prospero off to sea, there is no real justification for him yelling at the Boatswain in the first act or him and Sebastian taunting Gonzalo and Adrian in the second. Very little justification can be found in him convincing Sebastian to kill Alonso or his comment about how he feels after supposedly killing his brother (Sebastian: But, for your conscience? Antonio: Ay, sir; where lies that?). In short, Antonio, no matter how well he ruled or if he was correct in taking the throne from Prospero, he was a cold human.

**Author's Note:**

> This was written with the intent of helping a friend feel better about playing Antonio. However, I soon found that he is not a very nice human, oops. Propsero and Antonio’s relationship is quite messed up and no matter how many of Miranda and Ferdinand's children/grandchildren/etc get the thrones, they will be overthrown by the Spanish in the 18th century.


End file.
